Case Study Stoughton City Budget

https://webcourses.ucf.edu login" rel="nofollow">in:id674301 Password: Okt@bien79 PAD3003-16Summer CW61 https://webcourses.ucf.edu/courses/1201291/files/55322726/download?wrap=1 Please read the case studyPreview the documentView in" rel="nofollow">in a new win" rel="nofollow">indow. In paragraph form (3-5 pages), the case analysis should in" rel="nofollow">include the followin" rel="nofollow">ing sections: •Clearly and succin" rel="nofollow">inctly, describe the problem or issue that is the subject of the case. Use names to identify key actors in" rel="nofollow">in the case (not all actors). •Identify and evaluate 2-3 relevant potential courses of action. Describe each and state their strengths and weaknesses. •Choose the alternative that you believe is most appropriate and justify your choice. Apply concepts primarily from Module 5, but Module 6 could apply as well. •Use the discussion questions provided at the end of the case to help guide your analysis. While you are not answerin" rel="nofollow">ing these questions directly, they can provide guidance for the write-up. •Write a concludin" rel="nofollow">ing paragraph. Rubric Case Studies Case Studies Criteria Ratin" rel="nofollow">ings Pts Formattin" rel="nofollow">ing & Organization Followed formattin" rel="nofollow">ing accordin" rel="nofollow">ing to the syllabus. Very well organized. 1.5 pts Generally followed formattin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">instructions, min" rel="nofollow">inimal errors. Fairly well organized. 1.2 pts Major errors in" rel="nofollow">in formattin" rel="nofollow">ing. Poorly organized, difficult to follow. 0.9 pts No Marks 0.0 pts 1.5 pts Writin" rel="nofollow">ing Quality Few errors in" rel="nofollow">in spellin" rel="nofollow">ing and punctuation, succin" rel="nofollow">inct written with clear message. 1.5 pts Some errors in" rel="nofollow">in spellin" rel="nofollow">ing and punctuation. Mostly understandable. 1.2 pts Numerous errors in" rel="nofollow">in spellin" rel="nofollow">ing and punctuation. Difficult to understand the poin" rel="nofollow">ints the student is tryin" rel="nofollow">ing to make. 0.9 pts No Marks 0.0 pts 1.5 pts Analysis Concise yet complete. Good in" rel="nofollow">insight for the reader. Identifies most to all key actors. 2.0 pts Some poin" rel="nofollow">ints are unclear. Identifies actors, but may not be all key actors. Adequate in" rel="nofollow">insight to the reader. 1.6 pts Unclear. Reader is unlikely to understand the case from the description. Does not identify key actors. 1.2 pts No Marks 0.0 pts 2.0 pts Evidence Recognizes viable policy alternatives and justifies chosen alternative. Supports position with valid arguments. 2.5 pts Recognizes one viable alternative or tries to support a position but arguments are not valid. 2.0 pts Fails to consider alternatives or in" rel="nofollow">inaccurately identifies alternatives. Does not articulate a position. 1.5 pts No Marks 0.0 pts 2.5 pts Description of criterion Clearly identifies theory or concept from the readin" rel="nofollow">ings that is appropriate for the case and clearly lin" rel="nofollow">inked. 2.5 pts Mentions a theory or concept that is somewhat applicable. May not be clearly connected to the case. 2.0 pts No theory or concept from class identified or theory chosen is not appropriate for the case. 1.5 pts